Judgment 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the third respondent/the Superintending Engineer, the Tamilnadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Cuddalore, in proceeding Ka.No.158/Me Po/TNEB/Cud/Adm2/U4/KoVaVe/2011, dated 06.01.2011, by calling for the records connected thereto, and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post in the first respondent Corporation on compassionate ground. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father-Late Selvaraj was appointed as a Contract Labourer on 03.11.2008 in the respondent Electricity Board and thereafter, while he was in service, he died on 23.08.2010, leaving behind the petitioner and his wife. Subsequent to the demise, wife of the deceased made a representation dated 11.10.2010 seeking appointment to her son/petitioner herein on compassionate ground, but, the said representation was rejected by the third respondent, by way of passing the present impugned order dated 06.01.2011, on the ground that the petitioner's father was engaged as a Contract Labour on daily wage basis at the time of his death. 3. Attacking the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's father-deceased Selvaraj had worked for more than 480 days in the respondent Electricity Board and he was also absorbed into Board Service as per Board Proceeding in (Per) B.P.(FB) No.44, Administrative Branch, dated 06.09.2007, therefore, he is entitled to be given the permanent status as per the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. 4. In support of the above said contention, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of R.Lakshmi v. the Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another for a proposition that a workman, who had completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calender months, would become automatically a permanent employee under the employer, even if an employer had not conferred him with the permanent status. 5. 5. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court a proceeding dated 01.11.2008 of the Executive Engineer (incharge), Cuddalore, and also the proceeding passed in B.P.No.44, dated 06.09.2007 by the Chief Engineer (Personnel), to show that the petitioner's father deceased Selvaraj was absorbed into the Board Service on 01.11.2008, hence, the question of not extending the benefit of compassionate appointment is out of context, accordingly, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the question of compassionate appointment to the petitioner would not arise, since his father-deceased Selvaraj was engaged as a Contract Labour on daily wage basis at the time of his death. He further stated that an appointment on compassion ground is applicable to the dependants of the permanent employees of the Board and not like the petitioner's father, since he was admittedly engaged as a casual labourer. On that count, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard both sides. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father was absorbed into Board Services by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 01.11.2008, with a condition that he had to work temporarily for a period of one year and in the said proceedings, they referred to Board Proceedings passed in B.P.No.44, dated 06.09.2007, whereby, all those contract labourers working in the respondent Board absorbed into the Board Services. While he was working in the respondent Board, unfortunately, he died on 23.08.2010, leaving behind his wife and his only son/petitioner herein. Thereafter, though the wife of the deceased Selvaraj made a representation dated 11.10.2010 seeking appointment to her son on compassionate ground, the same was rejected citing a reason that her husband worked only as a temporary employee at the time of his death. In this context, it has to be seen, whether an appointment on compassion ground can be given to a person who has worked on temporary basis? 9. The above said question had already been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in R.Lakshmi's case (cited supra). For better appreciation, paragraph 36 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “36. In this context, it has to be seen, whether an appointment on compassion ground can be given to a person who has worked on temporary basis? 9. The above said question had already been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in R.Lakshmi's case (cited supra). For better appreciation, paragraph 36 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “36. We also hold that even in the absence of any enquiry conducted by the Inspector under Act, the right conferred upon the petitioner's husband to claim the benefit of permanent status could not be denied by any means because of the simple fact that Section 3(1) of the Act imposes an obligation upon the respondents/Electricity Board Authorities to confer permanent status of the petitioner's husband, who had rendered 480 days of work continuously in a period of 24 calender months and on that basis, we hold that the petitioner's husband deceased S.Raju is entitled to be made permanent by the respondents / Tamilnadu Electricity Board Authorities and once, in law, he was entitled to the benefit of conferment of permanent status, the resultant benefit could not be deprived to the petitioner (wife) notwithstanding the fact that during his lifetime no such permanency was conferred on him. Viewed in that perspective, we hold that a workman, who had completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calender months, would become automatically a permanent employee under the employer, even if, an employer had not conferred him with the permanent status or even if, no direction was issued by the competent authority in this regard under the Act, 1981 or the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, we answer the Reference.” A mere reading of the above said clearly depicts that a workman, who had completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calender months, would become automatically a permanent employee under the employer, even if the employer had not conferred him with the permanent status. 10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father had also rendered more than 480 days of continuous service, but, even after such continuous service, he was not made permanent. To substantiate as to whether the petitioner's father had continuously worked 480 days, learned counsel for the petitioner produced certain documents obtained under the RTI Act from the General Manager (incharge). To substantiate as to whether the petitioner's father had continuously worked 480 days, learned counsel for the petitioner produced certain documents obtained under the RTI Act from the General Manager (incharge). From the said documents, it could be seen that the petitioner had worked for 512 days continuously between November, 2008 and August, 2010, in the respondent Electricity Board at the office of the RCC Yard, Nathapatti, Cuddalore. Therefore, as per the above said judgment of this Court, the petitioner's father – deceased Selevaraj would become automatically a permanent employee under the respondents/Electricity Board, since he had admittedly worked for more than 480 days in a period of 24 calender months. 11. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the third respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassion ground for the reason that the petitioner's father – deceased Selevaraj worked as temporary employee, is absolutely void and bereft of acceptance, therefore, the same is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.